Well, being as how there's absolutely no statement as to what patents are allegedly infringed upon, but guessing that given the players that it involves flash memory and by the number, rather old flash memory technology, quite a few questions come up, including whether they haven't passed up their opportunity to sue: 7 years max I believe for tolerated known infringement. Given that there's at least 24 defendents, indicating wide-spread and long running infringement, they probably can't pull the rug at this late date, although the courts have been known to do dumber things.
A quick google search on "packet switching" reveals several people involved in the development of packetswitching, and Larry Roberts is not one of them. He, in fact, supports Leonard Kleinrock. That last article on packet switching may actually be one of the more interesting ones, as it is written by someone that was involved in yet another application external to ARPANet.
Download the x86 and AMD64 ISOs of Gutsy Gibbon. You'll easily hit 8GB, and probably in a single day if the transmission speed can handle it. It's also 100% legal based on their limitations, as it could be considered browsing, or connecting to your corporate intranet and accessing files there.
So you're using some kind of magical economics system where you can replace a 20 dollar piece of commodity hardware with a 200 dollar HD drive that hasn't even won the standards war yet and then somehow make it cost effective by discarding a few bucks worth of plastic. Magical? Hardly. The unit now costs $179, including some HD-DVD movies. Remove the $20 commodity hardware, replace with the $x (where x = $179 - $20 - profit margin - case - connectors - cabling - power supply - control panel/electronics) So yeah, I'd expect the price to be within $100 of the current unit.
The fact is that Sony were dumbasses for trying to force people to buy into the Bluray thing when they just wanted to play games, and Microsoft would be just as retarded for forcing HD-DVD onto us through a gaming console. I don't disagree, but you could as easily make the statement they were dumb for trying to force us to use technology 'x' for just playing games. The truth is they were expanding the gaming capability, chose blu-ray as their new vehicle, and priced it accordingly. The fact that others came out with alternatives that were both cheaper (MS & Wii) and more fun (Wii) and are currently kicking their ass in sales even though they're not as technologically advanced in video indicates that perhaps their problems lie not solely with price or the blu-ray technology.
I believe our government has used fear, uncertainty, and doubt more effectively than any terrorist. We're all aware that current airport security is an ineffective joke that would have had next to no success in stopping 9/11. They used box cutters and empty threats, for crying out loud. Probably the best deterrent for another occurrence was the initial event, as passengers now know that they have nothing to lose in attacking the nut jobs attempting a hijacking. Add in reinforced cockpit doors, the only sane move made by the government, and you've reduced the potential of another 9/11 to near 0.
First off, it would probably lower the total cost quite a bit (no extra case, power supply, cabling interfaces for internal to external and back to internal, etc.
But with the failure rate of 360s, it probably would drive MS's cost up significantly to also have to swallow the cost of an HD-DVD drive on each return. (Rumored as high as 1 in 3 of all XBox 360s sold)
And oh goodie on the Sony:
Sony's much-anticipated OLED TV not only has a Japanese release date, it also has a price: 1,743 bucks for an 11-incher. Perhaps the article should really have been title "20 ways Americans are too smart to get swindled by crap"
Personally, I couldn't care diddly for rural customers. There's no reason that urban customers have to suffer a LCD environment. Heck, I live less than 3 miles from a center of telecommunications in the US (perhaps the center) and until recently I couldn't get "broadband" (as defined as greater than at least 1Mbps in both directions) from anyone until just a couple of months ago when AT&T finally lit their fiber.
As for that service, it's far better than the cable service I was using, the upload speed side alone makes it worth spending less...:) The download speed side, on the package I decided to take, is about half, but I looked at my usage patterns and concluded that I rarely exceeded this level of download, and therefore didn't need to poney up the extra 25% for doubling download speeds.
While talking to the installers, they claimed that within a few months, they'll be going to a new backbone, and speeds should be raised significantly across the board. We'll wait and see on that one. Right now I'm enjoying greater upload speeds at half the cost of cable. That works for me.
That's what's funny. I've never seen it, nor has anyone else. We have an office full of machines here running SP2, including about half brand new. None of this behavior appears. (They also, of course, have the standard brain-dead AV products installed)
Before you go "oh, then your office is infected", I've also not experienced this "feature" at 2 other large installations, also with existing and new machines, nor on my old and brand new installation at home, nor has anyone else I know. These are all XP Pro SP2 installations however.
I'll also add that windows update has been permanently disabled on all boxes, and a large number of "services" have been disabled on my home systems. Based on the fact that some of these systems were never connected to the internet, there's no way they could have been pwned, so that theory's out (unless you're suggesting that MS sends out malware on their disks...)
The only thing I did notice is that getting to a share can be problematic if your share network settings aren't setup to be the same, but absolutely nothing regarding running anything off a share, or download, or copied from CD/DVD or even floppies (yes, I still have a 3.5" floppy drive on 1 system, as XP requires a 3.5" floppy for the driver for that hardware during install)
Heck, had a working system based on the PATH INFO of the RFC and wasn't stupid (smart?) enough to file a patent 6 months previous to their applied date. Said system was in response to google SEO changes. Maybe I should patent the other half of the idea: use DNS masking to create multiple virtual WWW sites on a single system? I mean, that's straight out of the DNS RFC, and if Amazon can do it, why not me?
If you're still having delusions of brown coloured badly smelling bubbles, pull your head out of your arse. It explains the (badly written) vitriolic bile emanating from the same. Perhpas goatse would be a better locale for you?
It's amazing that no one else, and I mean no one else, has problems like you do. I think it speaks more to your self admitted idiocy and incompetence than anything else, since you're the cause (you support them, right, so you could fix them if you had half a clue.). Just try not to get any drool on any of the equipment.
I'd highly suggest you go take a look at exactly what you're running, because plain jane XP SP2 it isn't.
Those bubbles you're bursting are the one's that are floating off your chin. I have a couple of Macs, it's true, but I also own 2 Solaris boxes, and a couple of other odds and ends, and even a windows box plus, of course, what I run at work (combination of windows, linux, and solaris).
And let me repeat that not a single one of the windows machines exhibits any of the make believe nonsense you're spouting. Maybe you've "enhanced" your machine with some wonderful Norton 360 product, or whatever passes for user friendly big bother security these days in the MS world. (no - that wasn't a typo;)
I still note you're stuck in the Browser mentality. Yes, I suppose it will check it everytime you run it from your browser. Who the fuck does that? Seriously. I personally don't care about the internal process of XP and network drives. Overall, network drive performance is poor enough that I'd never run anything from them, even at GB speeds. So I could run programs from them. Big deal.
Now for your smoke - NTFS file streams, sorry to burst your bubble and expose you for the rabid rat you are, but they do NOT apply to installed applications. So go fly your trolling paper kite somewhere else.
Actually, I'd say no corporation can own more than 20% or 3 stations, whichever is lower, in any given market (not call letter, but actual broadcasting entities). Furthermore, while ownership of TV and Radio stations isn't as big a deal, given the number of each, newspapers probably should be separated, as there usually is only a single paper in a city.
The rest I agree with.
I can personally attest to what happens when a single corporation comes rolling in and buys up, say, 7 stations in a single location. No one here that I know listens to radio anymore, because all 7 stations now play from 3 lists, and you can switch stations and hear the same song, esp during rush hour (that just plays to the payola contingent). ClearChannel basically came in and bought all the rock/pop and CW stations in the area, and we now have Jack-FM and an independent as the only alternatives to the CC drivel.
I have a 96 era PPro 180 w/ an upgraded 512MB of RAM and a 6 disk RAID array of a whopping 45GB. (9GB drives...still 7200 RPM).
I did install Win2K on that bad puppy, and it ran relatively well. Since XP can be reduced to almost 2K status by removing services etc, it should run as well, although I've not tried it as I retired that box about 5 years ago.
The "problem" with these implementations is that decrypted content can be stored in a home-brew PVR. That's not a problem, that's a feature!
And besides, why is that an issue anyways? Broadcast content is free for personal use. The only things that might be considered non-free are subscription based things like HBO, but even those are recordable. The content industry needs to wake up that there is no way to lock down content, no matter what they try. Should they lock it down all the way to the pixels and speaker coils, it can still be recorded.
I have AT&T's solution, which is a windows CE based system with Tivo like functions. I don't think I like it.
I love my Dish DVR. It is simple, it works, and it's extremely configurable. It does not search for programs. It works like a VCR. I'm happy with that.
As for satellite receivers, only during extremely heavy electrical or thunderstorms do I lose signal. We're talking torrential downpours that would cause massive flooding in an hour if it was continuous.
On quality of signal, even though AT&Ts signals are highly compressed (probably MPEG4?) the picture quality is quite good. If only the stream was steady. I get regular interruptions in the stream, causing 1-3s jumps. Still working this out, only had the system a week. I don't know what the true resolution of the underlying picture is. Dish's signals are also highly compressed and I haven't had the experience of seeing their HD signals yet, but their regular signals are good to acceptable, depending upon the broadcast resolution. (Dish uses 2 "standard" resolutions, 540X480 and 352X480. As you might guess, the latter, used for stations like Comedy Central results in rather mediocre pictures on larger screens)
Actually, I've frequently been harassed about applications I downloaded or copied off my network whether I really want to run them (and told at that point whether it's digitally signed). It's bloody annoying, and I bet it will be in OS X too.
Interesting then that I, with XP Pro SP2 and hotfixes have never seen such a beast. Perhaps you're running some third party app that does this or some screwed version?
The core thing here is that there is no way to tag an executable in Windows. You're blowing smoke. See below for more on MS's digital signing strategy.
# Application-Based Firewall
Your argument is a load of crap. The fact is, XP SP2 apparently did have it before OS X (even if it sucks, I imagine OS X's one will suck too). You cannot shrug off a valid argument against your point with strawman arguments like that. And it's not an add-on application. It's an OS feature. In the same way as OS X's new firewall is an OS feature.
Actually, OSX already has a firewall, you're just going to be able to use it in easier ways. BTW, IIRC, MS NT based OSes have had port blocking for a long long time. It's certainly not solely an XP SP2 item. (The reason I equate the 2 is that the SP2 Firewall isn't much better than pure port blocking. Don't bother arguing about it, MS's firewall has been well and roundly publicly criticized.)
# Library Randomization
As the GP said, this has been in lots of OSes for a long time, including Windows Vista.
And how easy has it been to implement? It's not in XP SP2.
How is that relevant?
Many of your arguments seem to be - but look, it's in XP SP2...
Other than that, Vista is a swell OS. Just look at its adoption rate. (yes, tangential slam, I just couldn't avoid it)
# Signed Applications
Again, Microsoft, SP2.
I believe MS had signed drivers and DLLs (not applications, just drivers and DLLs) long ago. Guess what, no one does it. When's the last time you had a signed driver or DLL? My sound card, video card, motherboard chipsets, network chipsets, printers, and scanners all came with unsigned drivers, despite being "Made for Windows". Having something and using it effectively are two entirely different things. Those would all be from mom and pop companies, like Creative, nVidia/ATI, MSI/Asus, broadcom, Konica-Minolta/HP, and HP/Epson, respectively.
Wow, way to twist the original point to fit your rabid, foaming at the mouth agenda. Microsoft signs all core OS components (ironically, not Internet Explorer) with their digital signature so the OS can verify that they are the legitimate originals. Third parties can choose to sign their code. Interestingly, that's the exact thing that Apple just described. This has been in Windows since Windows 2000.
From Adobe on the new features of SP2 (because even a google search shows little on digital signing of files other than for embedded systems):
Many of the new security dialog boxes appear if a particular piece of software does not have a digital signature. Digital signatures verify the authenticity of the software download. As software publishers get busy creating and filing their digital signatures, there will be a transitional period in which many reliable software applications will not yet have them. Even without a digital signature, users are able to click to confirm that they want to install their software and proceed with the installation. To find out more about the digital signatures, see the Enhanced Browser Security section of the Microsoft TechNet article, Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2.
Protect yourself from potential threats. Any application downloaded to your Mac is tagged. Before it runs for the first time, the system asks for your consent -- telling you when it was downloaded, what application was used to download it, and, if applicable, what URL it came from. This was introduced by Microsoft in Windows XP SP2 Really? It is? Amazing that the only time I'm asked whether I want to run an executable is when I download with a browser. There's no tagging of executables that I'm aware of nor have experienced. Nor is there anyway to tell where an executable came from once it's on your drive. Or maybe there's a new bug to report to MS about XP SP2....
# Application-Based Firewall
Gain more control over the built-in firewall. Specify the behavior of specific applications to either allow or block incoming connections. You guessed it; Microsoft, SP2 (it was available in third party firewalls before then of course) SP2's firewall is an add-on application. Yes, it ships with but is not integral too the OS, and can be replaced. It's also a piece of crap, IIRC. There's much easier and more efficient ways of securing your system. (FYI, I don't run it as it's too flaky for what I do and far too big a pain to even try and configure for the port ranges I use - it'd essentially be open)
# Library Randomization As the GP said, this has been in lots of OSes for a long time, including Windows Vista. And how easy has it been to implement? It's not in XP SP2.
# Signed Applications
Feel safe with your applications. A digital signature on an application verifies its identity and ensures its integrity. All applications shipped with Leopard are signed by Apple, and third-party software developers can also sign their applications. Again, Microsoft, SP2. I believe MS had signed drivers and DLLs (not applications, just drivers and DLLs) long ago. Guess what, no one does it. When's the last time you had a signed driver or DLL? My sound card, video card, motherboard chipsets, network chipsets, printers, and scanners all came with unsigned drivers, despite being "Made for Windows". Having something and using it effectively are two entirely different things. Those would all be from mom and pop companies, like Creative, nVidia/ATI, MSI/Asus, broadcom, Konica-Minolta/HP, and HP/Epson, respectively.
BTW, since OSX is BSD, then OSX has potentially had anything BSD has, especially things that are "ages" old as the other poster said.
That doesn't mean anything. That's the sort of thing people say when they're just making up fake problems to blame on Windows because it's Windows.
FUBAR = Fucked Up Beyond All Repair/Recognition - take your choice. I've listed a couple of ways it's broken already. Here's another one - the explorer clippytized "search feature". It doesn't. Worked pre-XP.
Baloney. It supports piping, redirection, echo on/off, command history, etc. etc. You can even simulate backgrounding of applications by simply calling command.com and passing your app to be "disconnected" from the "shell" as its argument. If you want to actually daemonize a process, you can do so with the built-in VB scripting.
The laughability of MS's shell's scriptability is well-documented.
It's not inconsistent at all. You can use forward slashes anywhere that you're not using a UNC path. Windowss will happily work with either directory separator. If you use forward slashes in an argument, you just have to quote the argument
Hmm, the quoting does work, but you lose tab completion. It's still a hack and windows obviously doesn't "happily work" with either separator. Thanks for pointing out the effect quotes though.
I believe that segment explicitly addressed Vista, not XP. Nice red herring.
It's not a red herring and I suspect you know you're lying about it being one. I specifically pointed out that XP was a valid alternative to Vista's inadequacy. YOU brought up another Vista inadequacy, pointlessly, when nobody had even attempted to invalidate your original complaint about it.
I brought it up in order to prevent the argument that "Well, Vista has x" in relation to a new shell. Whatever Vista has or does not has is irrelevant as it is not an option due to other failings.
I love your assumptions... Naah, that couldn't possibly be the case since some small network admin claims competence over sharing some printers and a web app or two.
Too rich.
Perhaps one day I'll detail some of MS's shortcomings in my journal. Then I can just point to that whenever some troll comes along.
And, of course, no fanboy breakdown would be complete without trying to dismiss a documented series of misinformation and poor understanding by simply calling the adversary a "troll" in a vain attempt to be the last comment on the subject in the hopes that everybody will see that and just ignore the rest of the thread. I doubt someone is going to read the last line and think that's it.
- You confused a "terminal", a "shell", and a "command interpreter".
Nope, not at all. Maybe you did, but I certainly did not. I did state that OSX's "Terminal" (quotes included, as it is the name Apple gave to their application that embodies the shell/command interpreter) as being far superior to MS's Command Prompt/Command line, whatever you want to call it.
- You didn't know that you can use / as a directory separator in Windows - something that has been true for many, many years now.
I just clarified that yes, it's still broken. Next:
- You made an arbitrary claim that your copy of explorer is "FUBAR"ed, whatever that means, but didn't explain how it came to be that way, what you're doing with it, when it occured, or what might have trigger this non-descript, mysterious problem.
It's inherently broken on every copy of XP. I've actually had it BSOD the machine when attempting to view a directory with only about a hundred large zip files. The search feature is also broken.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. I think you're like a lot of other anti-Microsoft zealots: you heard a buzzwords about OS X and Linux on Slashdot and other tech sites, saw a couple of people who probably actual
Slashdot Mirror
Well, being as how there's absolutely no statement as to what patents are allegedly infringed upon, but guessing that given the players that it involves flash memory and by the number, rather old flash memory technology, quite a few questions come up, including whether they haven't passed up their opportunity to sue: 7 years max I believe for tolerated known infringement. Given that there's at least 24 defendents, indicating wide-spread and long running infringement, they probably can't pull the rug at this late date, although the courts have been known to do dumber things.
A quick google search on "packet switching" reveals several people involved in the development of packet switching, and Larry Roberts is not one of them. He, in fact, supports Leonard Kleinrock. That last article on packet switching may actually be one of the more interesting ones, as it is written by someone that was involved in yet another application external to ARPANet.
But doing such pushes serves to illuminate the dangers of running MS OSes to businesses, and once they get antsy....
We're already seeing increased numbers of businesses considering Macs and Linux boxes for the enterprise. This can only help...
Download the x86 and AMD64 ISOs of Gutsy Gibbon. You'll easily hit 8GB, and probably in a single day if the transmission speed can handle it. It's also 100% legal based on their limitations, as it could be considered browsing, or connecting to your corporate intranet and accessing files there.
I believe our government has used fear, uncertainty, and doubt more effectively than any terrorist. We're all aware that current airport security is an ineffective joke that would have had next to no success in stopping 9/11. They used box cutters and empty threats, for crying out loud. Probably the best deterrent for another occurrence was the initial event, as passengers now know that they have nothing to lose in attacking the nut jobs attempting a hijacking. Add in reinforced cockpit doors, the only sane move made by the government, and you've reduced the potential of another 9/11 to near 0.
It's just string theory to CowboyNeal. After all, he wears boots.
First off, it would probably lower the total cost quite a bit (no extra case, power supply, cabling interfaces for internal to external and back to internal, etc.
But with the failure rate of 360s, it probably would drive MS's cost up significantly to also have to swallow the cost of an HD-DVD drive on each return. (Rumored as high as 1 in 3 of all XBox 360s sold)
That particular reference was to here.
Personally, I couldn't care diddly for rural customers. There's no reason that urban customers have to suffer a LCD environment. Heck, I live less than 3 miles from a center of telecommunications in the US (perhaps the center) and until recently I couldn't get "broadband" (as defined as greater than at least 1Mbps in both directions) from anyone until just a couple of months ago when AT&T finally lit their fiber.
:) The download speed side, on the package I decided to take, is about half, but I looked at my usage patterns and concluded that I rarely exceeded this level of download, and therefore didn't need to poney up the extra 25% for doubling download speeds.
As for that service, it's far better than the cable service I was using, the upload speed side alone makes it worth spending less...
While talking to the installers, they claimed that within a few months, they'll be going to a new backbone, and speeds should be raised significantly across the board. We'll wait and see on that one. Right now I'm enjoying greater upload speeds at half the cost of cable. That works for me.
That's what's funny. I've never seen it, nor has anyone else. We have an office full of machines here running SP2, including about half brand new. None of this behavior appears. (They also, of course, have the standard brain-dead AV products installed)
Before you go "oh, then your office is infected", I've also not experienced this "feature" at 2 other large installations, also with existing and new machines, nor on my old and brand new installation at home, nor has anyone else I know. These are all XP Pro SP2 installations however.
I'll also add that windows update has been permanently disabled on all boxes, and a large number of "services" have been disabled on my home systems. Based on the fact that some of these systems were never connected to the internet, there's no way they could have been pwned, so that theory's out (unless you're suggesting that MS sends out malware on their disks...)
The only thing I did notice is that getting to a share can be problematic if your share network settings aren't setup to be the same, but absolutely nothing regarding running anything off a share, or download, or copied from CD/DVD or even floppies (yes, I still have a 3.5" floppy drive on 1 system, as XP requires a 3.5" floppy for the driver for that hardware during install)
Darn Firefox plugins, I missed a classic bit of irony
Heck, had a working system based on the PATH INFO of the RFC and wasn't stupid (smart?) enough to file a patent 6 months previous to their applied date. Said system was in response to google SEO changes. Maybe I should patent the other half of the idea: use DNS masking to create multiple virtual WWW sites on a single system? I mean, that's straight out of the DNS RFC, and if Amazon can do it, why not me?
If you're still having delusions of brown coloured badly smelling bubbles, pull your head out of your arse. It explains the (badly written) vitriolic bile emanating from the same. Perhpas goatse would be a better locale for you?
It's amazing that no one else, and I mean no one else, has problems like you do. I think it speaks more to your self admitted idiocy and incompetence than anything else, since you're the cause (you support them, right, so you could fix them if you had half a clue.). Just try not to get any drool on any of the equipment.
I'd highly suggest you go take a look at exactly what you're running, because plain jane XP SP2 it isn't.
Those bubbles you're bursting are the one's that are floating off your chin. I have a couple of Macs, it's true, but I also own 2 Solaris boxes, and a couple of other odds and ends, and even a windows box plus, of course, what I run at work (combination of windows, linux, and solaris).
And let me repeat that not a single one of the windows machines exhibits any of the make believe nonsense you're spouting. Maybe you've "enhanced" your machine with some wonderful Norton 360 product, or whatever passes for user friendly big bother security these days in the MS world. (no - that wasn't a typo;)
I still note you're stuck in the Browser mentality. Yes, I suppose it will check it everytime you run it from your browser. Who the fuck does that? Seriously. I personally don't care about the internal process of XP and network drives. Overall, network drive performance is poor enough that I'd never run anything from them, even at GB speeds. So I could run programs from them. Big deal.
Now for your smoke - NTFS file streams, sorry to burst your bubble and expose you for the rabid rat you are, but they do NOT apply to installed applications. So go fly your trolling paper kite somewhere else.
Actually, I do. Unless you're willing to personally fork over enough cash to meet my needs for the next few decades.
Now, as to Cable, Satellite, or Landline phones...
Actually, I'd say no corporation can own more than 20% or 3 stations, whichever is lower, in any given market (not call letter, but actual broadcasting entities). Furthermore, while ownership of TV and Radio stations isn't as big a deal, given the number of each, newspapers probably should be separated, as there usually is only a single paper in a city.
The rest I agree with.
I can personally attest to what happens when a single corporation comes rolling in and buys up, say, 7 stations in a single location. No one here that I know listens to radio anymore, because all 7 stations now play from 3 lists, and you can switch stations and hear the same song, esp during rush hour (that just plays to the payola contingent). ClearChannel basically came in and bought all the rock/pop and CW stations in the area, and we now have Jack-FM and an independent as the only alternatives to the CC drivel.
It's doable, and not even that bad. :)
I have a 96 era PPro 180 w/ an upgraded 512MB of RAM and a 6 disk RAID array of a whopping 45GB. (9GB drives...still 7200 RPM).
I did install Win2K on that bad puppy, and it ran relatively well. Since XP can be reduced to almost 2K status by removing services etc, it should run as well, although I've not tried it as I retired that box about 5 years ago.
And besides, why is that an issue anyways? Broadcast content is free for personal use. The only things that might be considered non-free are subscription based things like HBO, but even those are recordable. The content industry needs to wake up that there is no way to lock down content, no matter what they try. Should they lock it down all the way to the pixels and speaker coils, it can still be recorded.
I have AT&T's solution, which is a windows CE based system with Tivo like functions. I don't think I like it.
I love my Dish DVR. It is simple, it works, and it's extremely configurable. It does not search for programs. It works like a VCR. I'm happy with that.
As for satellite receivers, only during extremely heavy electrical or thunderstorms do I lose signal. We're talking torrential downpours that would cause massive flooding in an hour if it was continuous.
On quality of signal, even though AT&Ts signals are highly compressed (probably MPEG4?) the picture quality is quite good. If only the stream was steady. I get regular interruptions in the stream, causing 1-3s jumps. Still working this out, only had the system a week. I don't know what the true resolution of the underlying picture is. Dish's signals are also highly compressed and I haven't had the experience of seeing their HD signals yet, but their regular signals are good to acceptable, depending upon the broadcast resolution. (Dish uses 2 "standard" resolutions, 540X480 and 352X480. As you might guess, the latter, used for stations like Comedy Central results in rather mediocre pictures on larger screens)
Actually, I've frequently been harassed about applications I downloaded or copied off my network whether I really want to run them (and told at that point whether it's digitally signed). It's bloody annoying, and I bet it will be in OS X too.
Interesting then that I, with XP Pro SP2 and hotfixes have never seen such a beast. Perhaps you're running some third party app that does this or some screwed version?
The core thing here is that there is no way to tag an executable in Windows. You're blowing smoke. See below for more on MS's digital signing strategy.
# Application-Based Firewall
Your argument is a load of crap. The fact is, XP SP2 apparently did have it before OS X (even if it sucks, I imagine OS X's one will suck too). You cannot shrug off a valid argument against your point with strawman arguments like that. And it's not an add-on application. It's an OS feature. In the same way as OS X's new firewall is an OS feature.
Actually, OSX already has a firewall, you're just going to be able to use it in easier ways. BTW, IIRC, MS NT based OSes have had port blocking for a long long time. It's certainly not solely an XP SP2 item. (The reason I equate the 2 is that the SP2 Firewall isn't much better than pure port blocking. Don't bother arguing about it, MS's firewall has been well and roundly publicly criticized.)
# Library Randomization
As the GP said, this has been in lots of OSes for a long time, including Windows Vista.
And how easy has it been to implement? It's not in XP SP2.
How is that relevant?
Many of your arguments seem to be - but look, it's in XP SP2...
Other than that, Vista is a swell OS. Just look at its adoption rate. (yes, tangential slam, I just couldn't avoid it)
# Signed Applications
Again, Microsoft, SP2.
I believe MS had signed drivers and DLLs (not applications, just drivers and DLLs) long ago. Guess what, no one does it. When's the last time you had a signed driver or DLL? My sound card, video card, motherboard chipsets, network chipsets, printers, and scanners all came with unsigned drivers, despite being "Made for Windows". Having something and using it effectively are two entirely different things. Those would all be from mom and pop companies, like Creative, nVidia/ATI, MSI/Asus, broadcom, Konica-Minolta/HP, and HP/Epson, respectively.
Wow, way to twist the original point to fit your rabid, foaming at the mouth agenda. Microsoft signs all core OS components (ironically, not Internet Explorer) with their digital signature so the OS can verify that they are the legitimate originals. Third parties can choose to sign their code. Interestingly, that's the exact thing that Apple just described. This has been in Windows since Windows 2000.
From Adobe on the new features of SP2 (because even a google search shows little on digital signing of files other than for embedded systems):
Many of the new security dialog boxes appear if a particular piece of software does not have a digital signature. Digital signatures verify the authenticity of the software download. As software publishers get busy creating and filing their digital signatures, there will be a transitional period in which many reliable software applications will not yet have them. Even without a digital signature, users are able to click to confirm that they want to install their software and proceed with the installation. To find out more about the digital signatures, see the Enhanced Browser Security section of the Microsoft TechNet article, Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2.
Now, that sounds like it happens every time yo
Protect yourself from potential threats. Any application downloaded to your Mac is tagged. Before it runs for the first time, the system asks for your consent -- telling you when it was downloaded, what application was used to download it, and, if applicable, what URL it came from. This was introduced by Microsoft in Windows XP SP2 Really? It is? Amazing that the only time I'm asked whether I want to run an executable is when I download with a browser. There's no tagging of executables that I'm aware of nor have experienced. Nor is there anyway to tell where an executable came from once it's on your drive. Or maybe there's a new bug to report to MS about XP SP2.... # Application-Based Firewall
Gain more control over the built-in firewall. Specify the behavior of specific applications to either allow or block incoming connections. You guessed it; Microsoft, SP2 (it was available in third party firewalls before then of course) SP2's firewall is an add-on application. Yes, it ships with but is not integral too the OS, and can be replaced. It's also a piece of crap, IIRC. There's much easier and more efficient ways of securing your system. (FYI, I don't run it as it's too flaky for what I do and far too big a pain to even try and configure for the port ranges I use - it'd essentially be open) # Library Randomization As the GP said, this has been in lots of OSes for a long time, including Windows Vista. And how easy has it been to implement? It's not in XP SP2. # Signed Applications
Feel safe with your applications. A digital signature on an application verifies its identity and ensures its integrity. All applications shipped with Leopard are signed by Apple, and third-party software developers can also sign their applications. Again, Microsoft, SP2. I believe MS had signed drivers and DLLs (not applications, just drivers and DLLs) long ago. Guess what, no one does it. When's the last time you had a signed driver or DLL? My sound card, video card, motherboard chipsets, network chipsets, printers, and scanners all came with unsigned drivers, despite being "Made for Windows". Having something and using it effectively are two entirely different things. Those would all be from mom and pop companies, like Creative, nVidia/ATI, MSI/Asus, broadcom, Konica-Minolta/HP, and HP/Epson, respectively.
BTW, since OSX is BSD, then OSX has potentially had anything BSD has, especially things that are "ages" old as the other poster said.
That doesn't mean anything. That's the sort of thing people say when they're just making up fake problems to blame on Windows because it's Windows.
FUBAR = Fucked Up Beyond All Repair/Recognition - take your choice. I've listed a couple of ways it's broken already. Here's another one - the explorer clippytized "search feature". It doesn't. Worked pre-XP.
Baloney. It supports piping, redirection, echo on/off, command history, etc. etc. You can even simulate backgrounding of applications by simply calling command.com and passing your app to be "disconnected" from the "shell" as its argument. If you want to actually daemonize a process, you can do so with the built-in VB scripting.
The laughability of MS's shell's scriptability is well-documented.
It's not inconsistent at all. You can use forward slashes anywhere that you're not using a UNC path. Windowss will happily work with either directory separator. If you use forward slashes in an argument, you just have to quote the argument
Hmm, the quoting does work, but you lose tab completion. It's still a hack and windows obviously doesn't "happily work" with either separator. Thanks for pointing out the effect quotes though.
It's not a red herring and I suspect you know you're lying about it being one. I specifically pointed out that XP was a valid alternative to Vista's inadequacy. YOU brought up another Vista inadequacy, pointlessly, when nobody had even attempted to invalidate your original complaint about it.
I brought it up in order to prevent the argument that "Well, Vista has x" in relation to a new shell. Whatever Vista has or does not has is irrelevant as it is not an option due to other failings.
Too rich.
And, of course, no fanboy breakdown would be complete without trying to dismiss a documented series of misinformation and poor understanding by simply calling the adversary a "troll" in a vain attempt to be the last comment on the subject in the hopes that everybody will see that and just ignore the rest of the thread. I doubt someone is going to read the last line and think that's it.
- You confused a "terminal", a "shell", and a "command interpreter".
Nope, not at all. Maybe you did, but I certainly did not. I did state that OSX's "Terminal" (quotes included, as it is the name Apple gave to their application that embodies the shell/command interpreter) as being far superior to MS's Command Prompt/Command line, whatever you want to call it.
- You didn't know that you can use / as a directory separator in Windows - something that has been true for many, many years now.
I just clarified that yes, it's still broken. Next:
- You made an arbitrary claim that your copy of explorer is "FUBAR"ed, whatever that means, but didn't explain how it came to be that way, what you're doing with it, when it occured, or what might have trigger this non-descript, mysterious problem.
It's inherently broken on every copy of XP. I've actually had it BSOD the machine when attempting to view a directory with only about a hundred large zip files. The search feature is also broken.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. I think you're like a lot of other anti-Microsoft zealots: you heard a buzzwords about OS X and Linux on Slashdot and other tech sites, saw a couple of people who probably actual